Bernie Sanders To Challenge Hillary Clinton...

"People should not underestimate me," Sanders told the AP. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

This site does not advocate for a socialist agenda or a socialist candidate. However we do believe it is healthy that Bernie Sanders is stepping up to challenge Hillary Rodham Clinton for the democratic nomination to be their standard bearer in 2016. Aside from the likelihood if Clinton's baggage were air balloons they could carry a airship around the globe Bernie Sanders is at least honest about who and what he is and that is at the very least, refreshing. Hopefully his entry into the field will encourage other qualified democratic pols to toss their hat in the ring and make a run for it.

Sanders has already shown he’s not afraid to throw elbows, saying in an appearance on MSNBC earlier this month that the public is largely unaware of where Clinton stands on myriad policy issues.

“Why don’t you tell me what Hillary Clinton is campaigning on, do you know?” he asked.

“You don’t know and I don’t know and the American people don’t know,” he continued.

“I would hope very much that serious debate on serious issues is what we do in any campaign.”

Bernie Sanders has it quite right, we do need serious debate on serious issues and a great deal of it at that. For far too long we've been subjected to non serious debate over superfluous issues and the nation has suffered for it. So bring it on Bernie and hopefully several more democrats will follow your lead in challenging the "supposed coronation" of a very questionable candidate.

That and somebody other than H.R. Clinton needs to hold the feet of the republican field of clowns and jesters to the proverbial fire.

Now, if only someone would mount a strong candidacy from a third party. Then we might start making some headway to the future. Our democratic republic's survival may vary well hang in the balance.

Read the full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Christian Religionists Threaten SCOTUS With Civil Disobedience...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

"We will not obey.”

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was crafted by Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action; James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio; and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel.

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.” {emphasis mine}

As the SCOTUS weighs arguments in preparation for a decision on marriage equality, the self proclaimed defenders of freedom are fighting hard to deny the freedom to marry the person you love. If you happen to be gay or lesbian that is.

Religionists are so up in arms over granting marriage equality they are threatening civil disobedience? If the SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage equality, the right thing to do, civil disobedience is definitely a course of action they can pursue. If nothing else it certainly should give them a warm and fuzzy feeling they pleased their God while attempting to deny happiness to a community they disapprove of.

There is really no rational argument for denying marriage equality. Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to recognize marriage equality has not collapsed. They have continued to function well with absolutely no discernable family or social dislocations as a result.

The ridiculous statement that a SCOTUS decision in favor of marriage equality "will result in the "beginning of the end of Western Civilization" is nothing more than over heated hyperbole. Nothing could be further from the truth. But it does play well with those grasping at straws in their attempt to find a rational argument for their position.

More BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Riots in Baltimore...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Different takes on riots in Baltimore and potential root causes. What say you?

TPM - Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) weighed in on the turmoil in Baltimore on Tuesday, standing with police and blaming the violence on a lack of morals in America.

"I came through the train on Baltimore (sic) last night, I'm glad the train didn't stop," he said, laughing, during an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.

Railing against what he repeatedly called "thuggery and thievery" in the streets of Baltimore, Paul told Ingraham that talking about "root causes" was not appropriate in the middle of a riot.

"The police have to do what they have to do, and I am very sympathetic to the plight of the police in this," he said.

As for root causes, Paul listed some ideas of his own.

"There are so many things we can talk about," the senator said, "the breakdown of the family structure, the lack of fathers, the lack of a moral code in our society."

He added that "this isn't just a racial thing." {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

POLITICO - President Barack Obama on Tuesday said America needs to do some “soul searching” to break the cycle of clashes between police and the communities they serve.

Obama spoke hours after Baltimore was gripped overnight by looting and riots in reaction to the death of a 25-year-old black man injured while in police custody last week.

During a press conference in the Rose Garden, Obama struck a stern tone in saying America needs to get serious about lifting up impoverished communities, to help alleviate the tension that simmers under the surface and breaks through during confrontations with law enforcement.

“I think there are police departments that have to do some soul searching. I think there are some communities that have to do some soul searching,” Obama said. “But I think we as a country have to do some soul searching. This is not new.”

Obama also said there is “no excuse” for the riots and violence.

“It is not a protest. It is not a statement,” Obama said. “It’s a handful of people taking advantage of the situation for their own purposes, and they need to be treated as criminals.”

But he said the deeper problem is a lack of education opportunities for many kids and a criminal justice system that is a “pipeline from schools to prisons.” {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Conservatives, a Hard Lot to Figure Out...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

There was a time, 27 years past and beyond when being a conservative was meaningful and one could proudly claim he or she was a conservative. Conservatives held a clear set of principles, namely fiscal responsibility, limited yet effective government, they understood that as society and circumstances changed compromise was necessary to maintain a functioning government that leading a nation of 300 plus million is far more challenging than leading a nation of 6 million. Today the intellectuals of the early conservative movement have been replaced by the Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingram, Beck, O'Reilly, Coulter, Fox News. et all types and substance and truth is now trumped by innuendo, fabrication, and appearances. Talking points and hyperbole has taken the place of honest debate and discussion. Winning the talking points of the day is all that matters, whether they are truthful or not really is of little concern to the conservative camp these days. Rather than looking at facts and considering alternatives beyond their narrow scope of attention and reference they simply prefer to remain trapped inside the set confines of their self imposed paradigms.

As Baltimore experiences rioting, destruction of property, and looting, many on the right, rather than honestly analyzing the situation and considering the societal issues contributing to this tragic circumstance simply respond with the usual rhetoric and blame President Obama and the liberal/progressive agenda for all the problems. It is easier than to engage a genuine thinking process and discuss potential solutions that address the underlying problems of lack of economic opportunity, racial profiling, unequal justice under the law, and others.

Perusing rightwing blogistan one will find many sites such as described above. THIS SITE is representative of many. Examples from a recent post follow.

Cool HandApril 27, 2015 at 3:46 PM

It's time for “We The People” to take our country back from Obama and those idiot progressives.

Taking about Progressives, I just came back fro an Unfortunate Visit that I made to that imbicle lefty, Progressive Eruptions blog, written by that nut-case, Shaw. (what's her face"
where she constanly directly her nastiness twards Rightwingers. How can this COW constantly defend everything thjat this failure of a "president " does. .
And talking about Obama, one has to wonder why has Obama not addressed the rioting in Baltimore, when he sticks his big nose into everyother affaire that's none of his business.? And I wonder if Freddy Gray would look like his son, if he had one. He would also be one of the thugs.

And talking about Freddy Gray's Funeral, Obama needs to tell his Bros to behave!

Reply

Replies


LisaApril 27, 2015 at 3:55 PM

I think he is enjoying the unrest . He needs the focus away from him.
Like he said "Rhymes with 'bucket'"

Reply


First Of AllApril 27, 2015 at 3:51 PM

And just breaking....Baltimore's high school youth have declared a "purge" and are engaged in a Palestinian style assault on cops!! Rushing the police line and throwing rocks! Cops are in RETREAT!!! Some of the punk thugs are throwing bricks at the cops,
The overhead helicopter video is crazy! Looks like some Mid East shit! This is getting to be very scary

Oh my God!!! Fox is showing a second retreat by cops...swarming mob of black youth hurling bricks at cops...police line is retreating and surrendering the street.

The cops are just taking the barrages of rocks and bricks...they are being struck and just standing through it...no arrests...no retaliation.

Just saw a cop hit in the head by a concrete chunk thrown...which is DEADLY force....and coos kept retreating.

Time to unleash SWAT. Fuck em.
POPCORN!!! BAGEL BITES!!! This shits better than Hollywood! These wonderful diverse culturally beautiful Genital Giants are a picture of the wonderful future generation we have in America, perhaps some more Affirmative Action money would help.
Or maybe Obama should call for a “Beer Summit”.
Baltimore protests turn violent; police officers injured.
Seven Baltimore police officers have suffered major injuries in street clashes, a police spokesman said. One officer was knocked unconscious and others had broken bones, Capt. Eric Kowalczyk said. Video showed a police car burning and a pharmacy damaged. The unrest came the same day as the funeral in West Baltimore for Freddie Gray, who died while in police custody.
I think that they should call Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno in on this one ... they’ll know how to handle the dissidents when they step out of line.

Reply

Replies


LisaApril 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM

I bet 90% of those anarchists could care less about Freddie Gray .They only care when one of their own are killed by someone other than them

Reply


Radical RedneckApril 27, 2015 at 4:13 PM

The negroes are revolting again *sigh*

Reply

Replies


Radical RedneckApril 27, 2015 at 5:23 PM

We shoulda picked our own damn cotton *sigh*

Reply


Rusty ShackelfordApril 27, 2015 at 7:06 PM

Fuck the tear gas.....

Fuck the rubber bullets....

Fuck the bean bag's....

Load up with live ammo and chop about 100 of these animals down.....this shit would end in a hurry....

Reply


Radical RedneckApril 27, 2015 at 7:52 PM

We'd also eliminate 100 welfare recipients and Dhimmicrud voters

Reply


The Debonair Dudes WorldApril 28, 2015 at 5:55 AM

Obama's legacy is going to be “The Great American Race War”, as the “Peaceful protest” has been turning into riots, looting, burning, and all of the usual
destruction of other peoples property. and the confrontations with the police!

And as usual his is just a reason to get “Free Stuff” from looting, and showing more of their hatred.


If anything, people are gonna start sympathizing with the police instead of these animals aka “protestors” who have to deal with these animals daily. I guess that this is how they show support their cause...by disrupting traffic and ruining peoples property and stealing and burning. Yeah, that’ll work!

Reply

Replies


FreeThinkeApril 28, 2015 at 9:21 AM

This is nothing more than SICK-sties REDUX –– it's deja vu all over again.

Welfare is like Cracker-Jax -- the more they get, the more they want.

Welfare creates dependency that soon becomes addiction. We should all know by now that addicts always need MORE to get high, and when they can't get "more," they turn to CRIME, and the crime becomes increasingly violent as the addict gets weaker, more anti-social, more helpless and more hopeless by the hour.

This is the End Product of the Slave Trade.

Hasn't it cast a long long shadow?

HOWEVER, if we've learned anything at all, –– which seems doubtful –– we should have learned by now that "LIBERALISM" and "WELFARE STATISM" are NOT effective remedies to an admittedly deplorable situation.

Reply


LisaApril 28, 2015 at 7:09 AM

they think this helps them but it makes them look like savages and makes the rest of the law abiding community members look bad.
Time for some real leadership instead of this constant blame and finger pointing like Barry does.

Reply

Replies


ThersitesApril 28, 2015 at 8:55 AM

This mother has got it RIGHT!


LisaApril 28, 2015 at 10:25 AM

That video went viral.
He'll thank his mama later when he is all growed up
what a bunch of wild animals.No better than animals run amok in the jungle

Reply


Lyin' BrianApril 28, 2015 at 10:56 AM

Have no fear people. Hillary's Vejayjay is here!

Reply

These folks know how to make one reconsider whether being a conservative these days makes any rational sense. Considering THIS as well it certainly tilts away from embracing conservatism anymore.

What's Wrong WithThis Picture?...

Rational Nation USA 
Purveyor of Truth

Faith leaders demand that liberal justices sit out gay marriage case

Well there you have it folks. The continuing efforts by the American religionist to force a Christian THEOCRACY on all by attempting to remove the brains of reason and seal the mouths of rational thinkers.

Their motto should be "Equality Not, Reason to the Winds, and Mysticism Forever".

Tic Toc, Tic Toc, Tic Toc... the march to the American Christian Sharia.

Via: Memeorandum

Link Update:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a nonpartisan educational organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans

The Clinton Uranium Connection...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Hillary Rodham Clinton certainly has a bit of a baggage problem. Given the controversy around foreign money and the Clinton's various organizations one must acknowledge the controversy over, and skepticism about the Clinton's ethics is well founded. Benghazi and other issues aside this one may very well result in a complete unraveling of her campaign and thus presidential aspirations.

Clips from The New Yorker.

The Times sums it up this way:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million … Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.


SKIP

1. Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation. The Clinton campaign, in its response to the Times, noted that other agencies also had a voice in the approval process, and gave the Times a statement from someone on the approvals committee saying that Clinton hadn’t “intervened.” The Clinton spokesman wouldn’t comment on whether Clinton was briefed about the matter. She was cc’d on a cable that mentioned the request for diplomatic help, but if there is a note in which she follows up with a directive—an e-mail, say—the Times doesn’t seem to have it.

This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it? Maybe the uranium people simply cared deeply about the undeniably good work the foundation is doing, and would have received the help and approvals anyway. In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust? Doing so becomes harder when the money is less visible, which leads to the second question:

2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Times writes, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s family foundation, “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the Times says that the foundation did not explain the lapse. I also asked the foundation to explain its reasoning. The picture one is left with is convoluted and, in the end, more troubling than if the lapse had been a simple oversight. The legalisms can be confusing, so bear with me: the Clinton Foundation has several components, including the Clinton Global Initiative and—this is the key one—the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, formerly known as the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that the donor-disclosure requirement applies to each part of the foundation.

Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, pointed out, though, that there are two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada). The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.) Minassian added, “As complex as they may seem, these programs were set up to do philanthropic work with maximum impact, period. Critics will say what they want, but that doesn’t change the facts that these social enterprise programs are addressing poverty alleviation and other global challenges in innovative ways.” Minassian compared the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) to entirely independent nonprofits, like AmFAR or Malaria no More, which have their own donors and then give money to the foundation’s work.

This does not make a lot of sense unless you have an instinct for the most legalistic of legalisms. Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it. Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. Anyone visiting the site would be justifiably confused. They are, in other words, effectively intermingled.

And what would it mean if the Canadian explanation flew—that the Clintons could allow a foreign businessman to set up a foreign charity, bearing their name, through which people in other countries could make secret multi-million-dollar donations to their charity’s work? That structural opacity calls the Clintons’ claims about disclosure into question. If the memorandum of understanding indeed allowed for that, it was not as strong a document as the public was led to believe—it is precisely the sort of entanglement one would want to know about. (In that way, the Canadian charity presents some of the same transparency issues as a super PAC.) At the very least, it is a reckless use of the Clinton name, allowing others to trade on it.


3. Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”


4. Putting aside who got rich, did this series of uranium deals damage or compromise national security? That this is even a question is one reason the story is, so to speak, radioactive. According to the Times, “the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Pravda has said that it makes Russia stronger. What that means, practically, is something that will probably be debated as the election proceeds.

5. Is this cherry-picking or low-hanging fruit? Put another way, how many more stories about the Clintons and money will there be before we make it to November, 2016? The optimistic view, if you support Hillary Clinton or are simply depressed by meretriciousness, is that the Times reporters combed the Schweizer book and that this story was the worst they found. The pessimistic view is that it was an obvious one to start with, for all the reasons above, and that some names that stand out less than Uranium One and ARMZ will lead to other stories. Are the Clintons correct in saying that there is an attack machine geared up to go after them? Of course. But why have they made it so easy?

Certainly the controversy surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the democratic party nomination and ultimately the presidency of the United States of America is now clearly and fairly in question. For those looking for an alternative to the array of questionable GOP candidates these questions of ethics and probity ought to case one great pause. I know the likelihood of me trusting Clinton has sunk to a new low.

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Exposing Right Wing Idiocy and Rampant Hyperbole...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Found today on what appears to be one of the right's most pompous, self righteous, judgmental, and incorrect weblogs trafficking in right wing blogistan.

The Award for THE WITTIEST EXCHANGE of the DAY goes to EMILIO De LISLE:

Jus Askin: Is that a Picture of a Rectum or a Virgina?

Emilio de Lisle: What a stupid question! Anyone with half a brain should be able to see it's Hillary Clinton's mouth before she puts in her dentures and puts on her lipstick!

{FreeThinke} - BRAVO, Emilio! You may come back and visit us anytime.

For the record, Hilary Rodham Clinton should be scrutinized closely and her record both in the senate and as Secretary of State open to intense scrutiny. As should the record of all presidential candidates of both parties, as well as third party candidates.

Mrs. Clinton, as well as all candidates of the republican party, must answer for their public record candidly and with open truthfulness. They must have their feet held to the fire so that the American electorate has the opportunity to judge their worthiness to occupy the office of the President of the United States.

Such determination ought not be based on innuendos, unsubstantiated accusations, partisan hyperbole, or character assignation. Yet this is what many trafficking the internet and right political circles attempt to accomplish. Much as FreeThinke, works on almost daily. To be equitable, there are certainly many left wing partisan weblogs that engage in similar activity. Both are dishonest and serve no useful purpose other than to obfuscate the real and serious issues of our time.

BTW, Hillary Rodham Clinton has light years to go before this independent conservative/libertarian would ever consider casting a ballot for her. But more on that later.

War Of Any Kind Has Unintended and Unfortunate Consequences...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

A predator drone in Afghanistan in 2010. CreditMassoud Hossaini/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The only way to avoid war casualties, collateral or otherwise is to avoid war altogether. That of course is not always possible because as history amply indicates there is always bad guys out to get you. Of course one ought to question why a nation would engage in warfare as the USA did in Vietnam and Iraq, unless the threat from another nation is actually real. Which in both the aforementioned there was no threat to our national security. But I digress.

President Obama's thought process in deciding to escalate the use of drones to combat terrorist groups and target ranking members is logical and sound. While it reduces American casualties because ground troops are not deployed crone technology is not perfect and the risk of what just occurred is always present.Unfortunately even if it were perfect the risk remains.

The New York Times - Barack Obama inherited two ugly, intractable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he became president and set to work to end them. But a third, more covert war he made his own, escalating drone strikes in Pakistan and expanding them to Yemen and Somalia.

The drone’s vaunted capability for pinpoint killing appealed to a president intrigued by a new technology and determined to try to keep the United States out of new quagmires. Aides said Mr. Obama liked the idea of picking off dangerous terrorists a few at a time, without endangering American lives or risking the yearslong bloodshed of conventional war.

“Let’s kill the people who are trying to kill us,” he often told aides.

By most accounts, hundreds of dangerous militants have, indeed, been killed by drones, including some high-ranking Qaeda figures. But for six years, when the heavy cloak of secrecy has occasionally been breached, the results of some strikes have often turned out to be deeply troubling.

Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.

The president’s announcement on Thursday that a January strike on Al Qaeda in Pakistan had killed two Western hostages, and that it took many weeks to confirm their deaths, bolstered the assessments of the program’s harshest outside critics. The dark picture was compounded by the additional disclosure that two American members of Al Qaeda were killed in strikes that same month, but neither had been identified in advance and deliberately targeted.

In all, it was a devastating acknowledgment for Mr. Obama, who had hoped to pioneer a new, more discriminating kind of warfare. Whether the episode might bring a long-delayed public reckoning about targeted killings, long hidden by classification rules, remained uncertain.

More BELOW THE FOLD.

Judge Neapolitano's take on the above, compliments of Mediate.


Via: Memeorandum

Police Authority Run Amuck...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

The following video is graphic and it is disturbing. This incident occurred in 2013. Similar incidents continue to occur. Excessive use of unnecessary force by those sworn to uphold the law. When you add dishonesty and corruption to the mix what do we have? Where are we headed? I shudder to think.

PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fla. - Exclusively-obtained dash-cam video shows Dontrell Stephens, 20, talking on a cellphone while riding his bike on a Friday morning in September 2013. He can be seen turning onto Norma Elaine Road near Haverhill Road and Okeechobee Boulevard as PBSO deputy Adams Lin trails him.

Moments later, Stephens realizes he’s being followed. He pulls over, gets off his bike with a cellphone in his right hand and walks toward the deputy.

For approximately four seconds Stephens is out of frame only to be seen again when being shot four times.

Stephens, who is black and has a criminal record for possessing cocaine, is seen running from the bullets then dropping to the ground.

Stephens was armed with nothing but a cellphone.

The video, exclusively obtained by WPTV NewsChannel 5 and The Palm Beach Post as part of a joint investigation into police shootings, was released as part of a federal wrongful death lawsuit filed against PBSO.

A short time later, an admittedly shaken Deputy Lin is heard talking to another deputy.

"He starts backing away," Lin explains. "I said, ‘Get on the ground, get on the ground.”

Then, the other deputy is heard saying, "I got your back man. I got your back. Hey, you hear me?”

Deputy Lin responds, “Yeah, I know.”

That day, Sheriff Ric Bradshaw went on TV to defend the shooting.

"Stop what you're doing and comply with us,” he told reporters. "There's nothing in the rules of engagement that says we have to put our lives in jeopardy to wait to find out what this is to get killed."

So, shot first, ask questions later. I hear the drumbeat of a banana republic police state loud and clear.

Via: Memeorandum

Steve King Again Showing His Radicalism...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Congressman Steve King released the following statement after introducing his bill “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015.” This bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs. […]

“My bill strips Article III courts of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, ‘to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.’”

As republican religionists continue to find creative ways to introduce legislation that is firmly rooted in their religious beliefs. One can't help but wonder how far off a Christian Theocracy might be. At times it seems republicans and Islamism have some things in common. They believe in the arraignment of Church and State methinks.

More:

Skip

Whatever one thinks of marriage equality, court-stripping is itself ridiculous. The constitutional principles of “separation of powers” hasn’t disappeared just yet, so the idea that the legislative branch will dictate to the courts what kind of cases judges are allowed to hear is more than a little crazy – it undermines the very idea of an independent judiciary.

And it sure as heck isn’t “constitutional conservatism.” Indeed, it’s effectively the congressional version of “legislating from the bench” – King and his cohorts want to adjudicate from the legislature.

Skip

As a matter of history, Congress has never actually passed a court-stripping scheme – we can only speculate about the constitutional crisis it would invite – and even if the GOP-led House tried to pursue this idea in 2015, there’s simply no way it’d overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate or get President Obama’s signature.

But the fact that several members of Congress are pushing such a proposal – all while Ted Cruz expresses interest in the same idea – speaks to an ugly strain of radicalism among Republican lawmakers.

While this is being driven by those opposed to marriage equality the ramifications beyond that singular issue are significant. A radicalized party, gaining control of the house, senate, and presidency could very well transform America beyond recognition. At times that is precisely what it appears some of the wackos in the republican party are trying to accomplish right now.

Via: Memeorandum

Loretta Lynch Finally Confirmed As AG 56-43...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

It took long enough, but at the end of the day 10 republican senators voted for confirmation of Loretta Lynch to Attorney General of the United States, the nation's highest law enforcement position. Ms. Lynch's qualifications were never in question in republicans ranks, however, that did not stop the feet dragging over the fact she defended Presidents Obama's perfectly constitutional executive actions on immigration. Below excerpt is taken from The New York Times.

Ms. Lynch, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, was confirmed 56 to 43, with 10 Republicans voting for her.

Her confirmation took longer than that for all but two other nominees for the office: Edwin Meese III, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan, and A. Mitchell Palmer, who was picked by President Woodrow Wilson, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Republicans have found themselves in a quandary for months. They longed to replace Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and they agreed that Ms. Lynch was qualified for the job. But they opposed her because Ms. Lynch defended President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

What’s more, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and majority leader, had held up the nomination until the Senate voted on a human trafficking bill, a process that dragged on for weeks. The measure passed on Wednesday by a vote of 99 to 0.

And some Republicans continued to strongly oppose Ms. Lynch. “We do not have to confirm someone to the highest law enforcement position in America if that someone has committed to denigrating Congress,” Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said on the Senate floor Thursday. “We don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.”

In the end several Republicans — to the surprise of many of their own colleagues — voted aye for Ms. Lynch, including Mr. McConnell. {Full Article Below the Fold

More HERE and HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

Is America Approaching Neo Fuedalism?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Tell us this, Mr Senator: when will all federal contractors be paid a living wage? Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

Does anyone take issue with the following? Is it reasonable to expect that when working 70 hours a week, as the gentleman who wrote the following does, a person is able to provide for the basic needs for their family and themselves without needing government assistant? Is it acceptable that government contractors make healthy profits and yet not provide decent wages for their employees? Is it ethical, moral? What, if anything should be done to rectify the unfairness, if that is what it really is? As we continue to see more economic stratification (rich/working poor) are you concerned about the long range negative and potentially volatile societal consequences that may occur? If so why, and if not why not?

American voters should ask themselves: if presidential candidates won’t help the workers who serve them every day, will they really help the millions of low-wage American workers who they don’t know or see? I’m a Bible-believing Christian, just like a lot of the candidates. Scripture says to “Love your neighbor” and “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you”. It’s a shame too few candidates follow the guidance of the book in which they say they believe.

My employer, Compass Group, is renewing its contract with the US government today – but none of the senators or government officials to whom we serve food asked me or my co-workers whether this multinational corporation, headquartered in the United Kingdom, is treating American workers right. No-one bothered to check if the company that makes billions in profits is paying workers a living wage and offering decent benefits so we don’t have to use public aid programs to meet our basic needs. We the workers sure have an opinion when it comes to federal contract renewals – but no one cared enough to ask us.

President Obama and each presidential hopeful should have to tell all Americans whether they will stop giving US contracts to extremely profitable companies who pay their workers so little that we have to rely on public assistance programs like food stamps. Otherwise, all their rhetoric about wanting American workers to get ahead is just empty words.

My co-workers and I are on strike because we want the current president – and those running to succeed him – to make sure that federal contracts are preferentially awarded to good American companies that pay workers a living wage, offer decent benefits like paid leave and allow us to collectively bargain so that we don’t need to strike to have our voices heard.

Most of the candidates know where to find me. I’ll be eagerly awaiting a response.

Read the full article BELOW THE FOLD and register your thoughts and concerns. This is a building domestic crises that must be addressed lest we become an American neo feudalistic society.

Via: Memeorandum

An Example Of Reactionary Right Thinking Passed Off As Conserative and or Libertarian Thinking...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Who's Your Daddy




The real question is, how were they allowed to harass people like this and do they really believe this will help the cause?

Who's Your Daddy, is a supposedly conservative libertarian weblog with a fair amount of  right wing reactionaries as well as sorting an ample number of  sock puppets   that truly demonstrate the deception that is prevalent in the internet. Anonymity gives voice to all sorts of wacko birds and crazy activity. You'll find a remarkable number of characters that fit the definition on right wing weblogs such as Who's Your Daddy.

Unfortunately the number of wacko birds on the right outweigh the number of rational and reasonable conservatives. At least that's the way it appears given the comment section of sites like Who's Your Daddy.

Aside from the usual wacko delusional drivel this site is also well known for it's occasional smut content as well as a abundance of racist comments by the regular reactionaries and sock puppets.

While this true conservative/libertarian site  does not wish to advertise the false conservative libertarian values of sites such as Who's Your Daddy it does believe it instructional and necessary to highlight such anti American sentiment and beliefs that find their way to publication anywhere.

This site encourages all rational and reasonable liberty loving Americans to peruse the archives of  Who's Your Daddy and affiliate site FreeThinke to understand the depth of the far right's hatred for real American values.

You can find examples of  real fear and hatred HERE and HERE.

Sometimes the Left Overreacts...

Rational Nation USA Purveyor of Truth

Police in Washington, D.C., have been referred materials for a possible investigation into two Republican congressmen who posed for a picture with an assault rifle in a House office building.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) last week tweeted a picture of himself and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the leader of the House's Benghazi investigation, holding an AR-15.

Having the AR-15 in the District could be a violation of the city’s strict gun laws, and the city attorney general’s office has referred the matter to police, a spokesman told The Hill.

"The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan Police Department for further investigation,” he said.

Buck said in the tweet the assault rifle is his and the picture was taken after Gowdy “stopped by.”

Buck told The Hill the rifle is “inoperable” and that he received approval from U.S. Capitol Police to bring it to his office, where it is on display in a locked case.

“I have a very patriotic AR-15 hanging in my office. It hangs directly above my Second Amendment flag,” Buck said.

“While safety protocols call for all guns to be treated as if they are loaded, this one isn't. Further, a close inspection of the only public photo of the rifle will show that the bolt carrier assembly is not in the rifle; it is in fact in Colorado.” It is a beautiful, patriotic paper weight,” he added. {emphasis mine}

If the above is true there should be no problem. Further; the "hair trigger" left really ought to chill. I mean aren't there legitimate concerns you could/should be targeting for redress?

Via: Memeorandum

Open Season On Wacko Birds...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

There actually exists nut jobs and publications that will publish their rubbish.

Would anyone be surprised to see this headline in the spring or summer of 2016: “Obama orders U.S. military attack on Israel / blocks Israeli strike at Iran / Iran grateful“?

Like it or not, there is an increasing likelihood we will see that kind of headline before Obama leaves office.

Why should we worry about that? Does water flow downhill?

President Obama’s treasonous sellout to the Iran nuclear program is only the latest chapter in his betrayals of America and our allies in the face of Iran’s Islamist ambitions. A U.S. military attack on Israel would have been unthinkable under any other president, but it is now quite conceivable.

There are two reasons we need to take that possibility seriously. First, it is entirely consistent with Obama’s pattern of pro-Iran policies and actions. Secondly, there is no one standing in his way.

SKIP

Whatever Obama and his team of advisers may think after their morning Kool-Aid, the people of Israel have no illusions about how trustworthy Iran is about the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Israel is not expecting the Leopard to change its spots or Iran to abandon its 36-year history of sworn hostility to Israel.

So, it is entirely likely and predictable that if Israel decides it has no choice but to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before Iran can produce nuclear weapons, Obama would likely act to block that military intervention by whatever means necessary, including a U.S. military attack on Israel.

Why would he not do it? Who would stop him?

Without s shred of evidence to support the outrageous assumptions, and lacking any logic or common sense the right wing steam machine continues it barge spewing BS and fear. Sadly there are far too many on the right who believe this sh*t.

Via: Memorandum

Koch Brothers Waltzing With Scott Walker...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Charles G. and David H. Koch, the influential and big-spending conservative donors, have a favorite in the race for the Republican nomination: Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

On Monday, at a fund-raising event in Manhattan for the New York State Republican Party, David Koch told donors that he and his brother, who oversee one of the biggest private political organizations in the country, believed that Mr. Walker was the Republican Party’s best hope for recapturing the White House.

“We will support whoever the candidate is,” said Mr. Koch, according to two people who attended the event. “But it should be Scott Walker.”

It comes as no surprise really, but now we know for absolute certain that Koch central has bought Walker. Isn't comforting to know that a potential President is firmly in the back pocket of billionaires. If that thought does not cause wholesale consternation within the American electorate we are indeed well on the way to Oligarchy and a neo feudalism that would no doubt have the founders spinning in their graves were that possible.

Entire article BELOW THE FOLD.

For a reference point for all you supposed libertarian and free market folks here is what Ayn Rand said about this.

Lobbying

“Lobbying” is the activity of attempting to influence legislation by privately influencing the legislators. It is the result and creation of a mixed economy—of government by pressure groups. Its methods range from mere social courtesies and cocktail-party or luncheon “friendships” to favors, threats, bribes, blackmail.

Yes sir, it is time to get the damn corrupting money out of our political and governmental system. For those on the right bitching about the corrupting influence of money from the left I say absolutely; it's time to plug the pipelines from everywhere and from all sources.

Via: Memeorandum

Special Interests and Corruption, The Road to Oligarchy and Neo Feudalism...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

The net affect of the money machine — lobbyists, fund raisers, and campaign consultants — is to severely narrow the field of those who can compete for office, especially national office. If the national presidency were to pass back and forth between two or three families in any Latin American nation we would call it an oligarchy.

But if those families can use carefully built political networks to raise a billion, or perhaps it is now multiple billions, of dollars to seek the presidency, what hope is there for the new voice, the fresh ideas, the innovative policies to address new 21st century realities?

If the corruption of our Republic by interests groups and their money, governance by a Court of rotating insiders, and fresh blood strangled from the political process is the ultimate product of a deck stacked against the Country, we are in for a precarious time in American history.

We will have created a political system and some form of government new in our history. But it will most surely not be the Republic of our Founders hopes and dreams.

Former Senator Gary Hart penned the above and his observations are spot on. Without saying it he is speaking of the Bush family. Hillary is not yet president but the odds are very good she might be come January 2017. Family dynasties controlling the nation's interests certainly cannot not be a good thing.

Our nation's lawmakers have talked about campaign finance reform and even made half hearted attempts to reform the system in the past. Yet the political money funnels and special interest have continued to increase and the greasing of lawmakers palms in exchange for special favors has almost become a national sport or pastime.

With Citizens United, a measure I initially and mistakenly supported, matters were made much worse. The really big money folks now have ways to funnel huge sums of money into the political system to influence outcomes, outcomes that benefit them and their corporations. They accomplish this through a corrupt system and the corrupt politicians and judges that make laws. Laws that do not benefit Joe the Plummer or any other hardworking person in America.

Both parties and their politicians are responsible to one degree or other. However, given the republicans almost unanimous support for Citizens Untied the finger of truth points to the republicans as having a heavier burden. Even the United States Supreme Court has become politicized and its impartiality compromised as a result. Americans became the losers again in the game of power politics where ethical behavior s of little concern.

Gary Hart's letter is likely to have zero impact and this little gripe column serves only as an opportunity for one who is frankly very pissed off to vent. If ever there has been a reason for the average working class individual to rise up and make their voices heard this certainly is the issue. With things trending as they are now we will undoubtedly morph into an Oligarchy and a neo feudalism won't be far behind.

Read Mr. Hart's complete article BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Clinton May Face Primary Challengers...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

For one hoping that several democratic candidates will emerge to duke it out for the opportunity to challenging whoever wins the GOP circus act this site is encouraged by Wasserman-Schultz's belief just such a thing will occur.

While thus far the democratic party seems short on substantive and dynamic candidates the GOP, with the possible exception of Marco Rubio, isn't all that impressive either.

BloombergPolitics - Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who doubles as chair of the Democratic National Committee, is so convinced that there will be a contested primary for the presidential nomination that she has begun planning for "a series of sanctioned debates that we expect our presidential candidates will participate in," she told C-SPAN's Newsmakers program on Friday. Referring to Bloomberg's poll showing that Democrats want a challenge to Clinton, Wasserman Schultz said, "I expect that voters who believe we should have a Democratic primary will get their wish."

Wasserman Schultz said she has been talking about the planned debate series with both official candidates (so far, there's only one) and potential entrants. She mentioned Vice President Joe Biden, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, former Senator (and Governor) Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Senator Bernie Sanders—although she noted that Sanders, a Vermont independent, would have to change parties to qualify for a Democratic primary. {MORE BELOW the FOLD

Via: Memeorandum

Nugent Pops Off About Shooting Hary Reid At NRA Gathering...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

"If your child is dying and there's only one way to get to the doctor, would you get on Harry Reid's boat to get there?" Nugent said. After a pause, he continued: "Then your child's dead. I'd get on the boat, I'd get there and then I'd shoot him." Ted Nugent 

Simply unbelievable! Even if he was 'just joking'. When mentality like Nugent stared having sway in the NRA is when the membership got dropped. Nugent, hell, the whole damn NRA organization needs a serious house cleaning.

Nugent, who is on the NRA's board of directors, made the comment while responding to an audience member who asked why the NRA "endorsed Harry Reid to serve as the front man of Osama Obama."

In video flagged by Media Matters, the conservative darling called Reid a "lying prick" after doing a bizarre impression of the senator. He then posed a hypothetical situation in which the audience member would need Reid's help.

Skip

Nugent later asked audience members to give the NRA the "benefit of the doubt" and continue to donate if the organization did something that didn't sit well with them.

"If you see them endorse someone like Harry Reid it's because this deceptive bastard actually stood up for our Second Amendment rights contrary to the alternative candidate,"

Full article with audio BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

A Women Shouldn't Be President; According to the Bible...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

From out of Texas, complete with a biblical reference. Why should this surprise anyone? Thump, thump, thump...

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – “A female shouldn’t be President,” is a direct quote from a Dallas woman’s Facebook page.

As you might imagine, the post has attracted quite a bit of attention from people across the country.

CBS 11’s Steve Pickett caught up with Cheryl Rios, the CEO of Go Ape Marketing, and asked her to explain the comment.

“I believe in what I said,” she told Pickett. “There’s an old biblical sound reasoning why a woman shouldn’t be President.”  (emphasis mine)

Here’s the full text of her post:

“If this happens – I am moving to Canada. There is NO need for her as she is not the right person to run our country – but more importantly a female shouldn’t be president. Let the haters begin . . . but with the hormones we have there is no way we should be able to start a war. Yes I run my own business and I love it and I am great at it BUT that is not the same as being the President, that should be left to a man, a good, strong, honorable man.”

Complete article BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Deeply Troubling...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Here we are, held spell bound by the nuttery and irrationality of a Tea Party and Evangelical favorite.

If this is even remotely representative of the intelligence and mentality of a large number on the right this nation is in deep doo-doo should it ever get control of all three branches of government.

Think a Christian Theocracy, one every bit as dangerous to individual liberty and religious freedom as any theocracy anywhere on the globe.

These people are a serious threat to the enlightened principals and ideals this democratic republic was founded on.




Read MORE HERE.

"Gays are like ‘murderers and rapists’... Says Texan Steve Hotze

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Agenda is clear, base secular law on religious dogma regardless of the obvious discriminatory bias against the gay and lesbian community.

Steve Hotze, president of Conservative Republicans of Texas, testifies against same-sex marriage during a meeting of the Texas House State Affairs Committee on April 7, 2015.

Discrimination is unconstitutional as well as immoral. Ones sexual orientation is of no threat to society and certainly is not a crime. Laws preventing the union of same sex couples are unconscionable and should be overturned by the secular courts.

RAW STORY - Testifying before a Texas House Committee over a bill that prohibits state or local funds from being used to issue a same-sex marriage licenses, an anti-gay activist compared gays to murderers and rapists who also, in his words, commit “immoral acts.”

In audio recorded by the Texas Freedom Network, Dr. Steven Hotze, head of Conservative Republicans of Texas, engaged in a back and forth with state Rep. Sylvester Turner (D), explaining how Texas should subvert the Supreme Court — should they approve same-sex marriage — the same way the state undermines the right to legal abortions.

Saying the state should only enforce laws that are “morally right,” Hotze explained how that determination is made, stating, “First you look in the Bible.”

“There are ways around the law. We have legalization — the Supreme Court, even though I believe it was completely wrong, said it is constitutional to kill a baby in the womb,” Hotze said. “I think it’s a horrible injustice and it’s unconstitutional. But, let me just say this, in Texas we said ‘We don’t believe that’s right. So we’re going to do everything we can to protect the unborn that we possibly can,’ and we’ve done that. And that’s the same thing.”

He added, “If they were to come out ruling that marriage between two individuals is legal, I would say let’s do to stop it just like we stopped abortion. Cut off funding for it, that’s all I’m saying.”

Told by Turner that he respects people no matter how they live their lives, Hotze claimed that sexual preferences is a choice homosexuals make, just as murderers and rapists choose to commit “immoral acts.”

“If you make that a standard, that it’s a person’s chosen behavior, no matter what it is, it gives them minority status? You’ve got to be kidding. Where do you stop?’ Hotze said incredulously. “Look, if people are involved in activities that are immoral and wrong, you can love them, but you don’t respect what they do and you try and help them find a way out. Whether they’re alcoholics, whether they’re murderers or adulterers. Whether they’re perverts, pornographers or whatever. You want help them. Or homosexuals, you want to help them out.” {Full Article Here}

Via: Memeorandum

Hillary Announces...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Drama ended today. As if there really was any doubt, despite the signature coyness and occasional denials from the former First Lady, New York Senator, and Secretary of State. Certainly the credentials are there to be a viable presidential candidate. Perhaps the only question is will her baggage (as well as hubby Bill's) be the detriments that will sink the Clinton aspiration for dynasty.

Given the lack of strong viable alternatives in the democratic party and the dismal array of potential republican candidates it is likely Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next president Of the USA. Yes, you can accept that as my 23016 prediction. That's just how BAD the republican field really is.

Meanwhile I for one am hoping against all hope for a strong dynamic third party candidate to emerge to challenge the light weights that now populate the major parties.

The New York Times - Ending two years of speculation and coy denials, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on Sunday that she would seek the presidency for a second time, immediately establishing herself as the likely 2016 Democratic nominee.

“I’m running for president,” she said with a smile near the end of a two-minute video released just after 3 p.m.

“Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion,” Mrs. Clinton said. “So I’m hitting the road to earn your vote — because it’s your time. And I hope you’ll join me on this journey.”

The announcement came minutes after emails from John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, alerting donors and longtime Clinton associates to her candidacy.

Mr. Podesta said that Mrs. Clinton would meet soon with voters in Iowa and host a formal kickoff event some time next month.

The announcement effectively began what could be one of the least contested races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history — a stark contrast to the 2008 primaries, when Mrs. Clinton, the early front-runner, ended up in a long and expensive battle won by Barack Obama. It could also be the first time a woman captures a major party’s nomination.

Regardless of the outcome, Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign will open a new chapter in the extraordinary life of a public figure who has captivated and polarized the country since her husband, former President Bill Clinton, declared his intention to run for president in 1991. Mrs. Clinton was the co-star of the Clinton administration, the only first lady ever elected to the United States Senate and a globe-trotting diplomat who surprised her party by serving dutifully under the president who defeated her.

She will embark on her latest — and perhaps last — bid for the White House with nearly universal name recognition and a strong base of support, particularly among women. But in a campaign that will inevitably be about the future, Mrs. Clinton, 67, enters as a quintessential baby boomer, associated with the 1990s and with the drama of the Bill Clinton years.

SKIP

Mrs. Clinton’s declaration on Sunday is to be followed by a series of intimate but critical campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire. She will use them to reintroduce herself to voters and begin to lay out the central theme of her candidacy: improving the economic fortunes of the middle class, with an emphasis on increasing wages and reducing income inequality.

Yuppers. it could shape up to be a real snoozer.

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum


UPDATE:

“If they get to nominate Hillary Clinton, why don’t we get to nominate Dick Cheney?”

— Bill Kristol.

Now THAT folks would be a disaster!

A What If From the Conspiracy Crazed Far Right...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Is it possible to explain delusions such as the following? Undoubtedly fear is a positive motivator, when it is rational. On the other hand irrational fear and fear mongering is a very dangerous. What you read in the following possibly ranks among the most irrational fear mongering published in some time.

Who among us thinks that, like the generation fresh from the triumphs of the last World War, our current self-serving politicos have the experience, moral probity and courage to face that choice of evils? Who is honestly sure that they aren’t already preparing an exit strategy that leaves their own factional power intact, even if America is no longer free?

What if Obama isn’t looking to his “legacy”? What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?

There it is. The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be – the enemies of America’s power, its prosperity, its constitutional liberty, its moral strength, indeed of everything about America except their own boundless ambition. Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States? What certainty do we have that, in some secret, back-channel codicil, this agreement is not already in place?

Note that this question isn’t just about Obama. It’s about the elitist faction that lifted him to power. It’s about their true objective, which is to overturn the exceptional constitutional sovereignty of the American people. It’s about the goal of restoring the norm of elitist tyranny characteristic of human governments throughout the history of the world. From this perspective, the only true friends of the American people are those who embrace and strive to implement the principles of right that justify their constitutional sovereignty. Isn’t it long past time consider a strategy that unites such friends in its defense?

You may believe a coup d’état “could never happen here.” But the danger we face is not some beer hall putsch. It’s is more like the consolidation of tyrannical power Hitler’s faction completed after he was appointed chancellor of Germany. But if such a denouement is already in view for the United States, isn’t it urgently necessary to begin doing what must be done to prevent its completion? As food for urgent thought, I will propose such a strategy in the next article to be published on my blog. Are you willing to think about it yet?

Alan Keyes, WND

For the full article GO HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

Dr. Ben Carson and Christian Rights...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Tidbits from potential republican 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.

“I would like to see as much emphasis on the rights of Christians and people who are members of the faith community as to some of the other groups.”

“It seems to be a topic, a person’s sexual orientation, that is of a fair amount of concern to you.”

“I respect the LGBT community.”

“I respect the traditional marriage community.”

“Because a lot of people go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay.”

On Thursday, Carson also declined to condemn “conversion therapy," the highly controversial practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy.

“My position is that that kind of thing should be left to therapists and individuals.”

Full article HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

Rick Santorum Visits Iowa, Is He Going To Run in 2016?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

It looks as if Rick (Frothy) Santorum is seriously considering tossing his hat in the republican circus ring for the 2016 republican presidential nomination. As one would expect Mr. Santorum, in a recent appearance in Iowa, focused on his conservative religious credentials and strength to stand up in support of conservative religious values and lead the social conservative fight. Presumably this includes an anti gay and lesbian agenda, especially with respect to marriage.

While Santorum was critical of theocracies he seems to miss the the point that RFRA's in states mentioned are in all reality the attempt to legislate law based on theocratic beliefs. Law that would allow for discrimination against certain communities. In other words institutionalized bigotry and discrimination.

Santorum, like most religious and social conservatives simply want to impose their brand of "religious freedom" upon the rest of American society.

“I know you all as state legislators have seen what happened in Indiana and Arkansas. What happened there was the media creating a firestorm and leaders didn’t lead. I have been through that firestorm. I can go back 13 years when I was in the United States Senate and stood up and said if the Supreme Court decides a case this way (decided Federal RFRA law could not be applied broadly to states) then all of these bad things are going to start happening and I said we would have same-sex marriage in 10 years. I was wrong – it was five,”

“I was put through a national wringer like no one had been put through and have been put through it over and over again because I am not going to back down from what I believe is the right course for our country. And you learn that the media can be brutal. It can be intimidating. It can be overwhelming, and you can look folks and say, ‘That is a stand-up person, they are going to stand-up tall. They are not going to back down when it gets tough.’ Then you realize, ‘Wow, that is not what I thought was going to happen.’ I share this with you because there is nothing… and this is what Walt (Rogers) was talking about… there is nothing that substitutes for experience, and particularly experience being in the middle of a vortex of a firestorm when your conservative principles and ideas are under the most intense scrutiny. And you’re being called everything you can possibly imagine and they’re trying to intimidate you from backing away from your position,” Santorum said this as an indirect criticism of Governors Mike Pence (R-IN) and Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), who backtracked from their original support of their state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Acts as originally written.

“That is when you find out if the person has what is necessary to stand up and lead through a difficult time and not back down, not run for the hills, not bail out, but actually stand-up in a positive and hopefully winsome way and make the arguments. I always say when it comes to religious liberty now or the marriage issue or a whole bunch of other things we are losing these arguments simply because we are not making them. We’re not making them because we are intimidated from making them. That’s just a… if that continues then life as we know it, particularly the family, is going to be on a very, very bad track in the world,”

Find the complete story BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Death Penalty too Humane for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Justice served, the Boston Marathon bomber found guilty on all 30 counts he faced for the killing of 200 innocent souls. For his crimes this degenerate sick pathetic excuse for a human being should not be executed as some advocate. Senator Elizabeth Warren is right, this evil bast*rd should die in prison. 30 individual 100 year life sentences (for a total of 3,000 years) without the possibility of parole is most appropriate.

Death is too good for this bast*rd, he should be made to suffer every single remaining day of his miserable pathetic existence until he dies. In fact a most appropriate sentence should include in addition to the above life in solitary confinement without a moment worth of contact with another human being (other than a doctor to ensure his misery is extended as long as possible), freedom of movement should BE restricted to a 10'x 12' foot cubicle with padded walls, A bunk, toilet, and food should be slid under the door with balsa wood chop sticks for eating utensils.

We know this isn't gling to happen under either state or federal USA law. But somebody explain again why it shouldn't.

THE HILL - Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) said Thursday that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 21-year-old who was convicted Wednesday for the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, should not face the death penalty.

"My heart goes out to the families here, but I don't support the death penalty. I think he should spend his life in jail. No possibility of parole. He should die in prison," Warren said on "CBS This Morning."

On Wednesday, a Massachusetts jury found Tsarnaev guilty on all 30 counts he faced for the bombing that killed three people and injured more than 200.
The charges included the aftermath of the bombing, which saw a massive manhunt for Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan, who died in a firefight, along with a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer.

Warren said "no one had much doubt" about Tsarnaev's guilt and "nothing is ever going to make those who were injured whole."

"But this is a step toward justice and now we go to the penalty phase," she said.

Tsarnaev could face the death penalty on 17 of the charges. Warren maintained that a life sentence in prison would mean "he's not a part of the ongoing story" about the bombing.

Via: Memeorandum

The Neo Con Agenda...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Former Vice President Dick Cheney (perhaps our worst ever) again cited President Obama as the worst commander in chief the nation has ever had. Something that is particularly amusing seeing that Cheney actually worked for former president George W. Bush who arguably is the worst president in recent memory.

President GWB, with his costly incursion into Iraq under false pretense, which resulted in the destabilization of Iraq and the region as a whole, is a shining example of the failure of the neo com foreign policy agenda.

Yet the faithful robotrons of the Gods of War are humping to find a way to dismantle the diplomatic gains made by President Obama, the result of tiring negotiations that many experts view as the best road to peace and stability in the region.

Ad now; some drip from the drab.

POLITICO - Former Vice President Dick Cheney says President Barack Obama is the worst commander in chief the United States has ever had, in view of the recent Iranian nuclear agreement. Asked about the deal by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday, the former vice president said the Iranian regime is “one of the most radical” in history and that “Obama’s about to give them nuclear weapons.” “I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing,” Cheney said when asked whether he thought the president is naïve or something else. “I think his actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had,” he said. Cheney also said “it’s a mark of the weakness” of Obama that he would criticize Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for saying he would get rid of the deal with Iran on his first day in the White House. “And it would be a foolish approach to take, and, you know, perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way,” Obama said in an NPR interview aired Tuesday. “It’s almost like a paid commercial” for Walker, Cheney said.

It appears as though the neo con's motto is; If it fails the first time keep trying it until it works. These dunderheads are bent on self destruction methinks. Via: Memeorandum